Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kinetic Engineering Ltd., challenged the judgments of the Industrial Court that allowed ULP complaints filed by the respondents (Barku Borude, Vilas Shinde, and Gangaram Agarkar) and granted them permanency in employment with all benefits. The respondents had worked intermittently for the petitioner under various appointment letters, with breaks in service ranging from about 12 months to 3 years. The Industrial Court bridged these breaks and concluded that the respondents had worked continuously. The petitioner contended that the impugned judgments were unsustainable. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the Industrial Court's findings. The court noted that the Industrial Court had considered the evidence and concluded that the workmen had worked continuously, and such a finding was not perverse. The court also observed that the petitioner had not challenged the factual findings on the ground of perversity. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the civil application was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanency - Continuous Service - The Industrial Court granted permanency to workmen who worked intermittently with breaks of 12 months to 3 years, bridging the breaks and concluding continuous service - The High Court upheld the decision, holding that the Industrial Court's finding of continuous service was based on evidence and not perverse - The employer's challenge was dismissed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting permanency to workmen who had worked intermittently with breaks of 12 months to 3 years, by bridging the breaks and concluding continuous service.
Final Decision
Writ petitions dismissed. Civil application disposed of. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Continuous service
- Intermittent employment
- Permanency
- Unfair labour practice
- Breaks in service
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 9
Writ Petition No. 653 of 2007 with Civil Application No. 9387 of 2008, Writ Petition No. 3689 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 4178 of 2009
Shri V. S. Bedre (for Petitioner), Shri S. V. Warad (for Respondent in WP/653/07), Shri P. L. Shahane (for Respondent in WP/3689/09 & WP/4178/09)
Barku s/o Zumbar Borude, Vilas Saja Shinde, Gangaram S/o Pandurang Agarkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging Industrial Court judgments granting permanency to workmen.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of Industrial Court judgments granting permanency to respondents.
Filing Reason
Petitioner aggrieved by Industrial Court's decision to bridge breaks in service and grant permanency.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court allowed ULP complaints and granted permanency with all benefits.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in granting permanency to workmen who had worked intermittently with breaks of 12 months to 3 years.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the impugned judgments are unsustainable as the workmen had not worked continuously.
Respondents supported the Industrial Court's findings of continuous service.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court's finding of continuous service, based on evidence and not perverse, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgments of the Industrial Court by which the ULP complaints filed by the respondents have been allowed.
The respondents/original complainants have been granted permanency in employment with all benefits.
Procedural History
The respondents filed ULP complaints before the Industrial Court seeking permanency. The Industrial Court allowed the complaints. The petitioner filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging those judgments.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act):
